Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)

Rahvin writes; You miss the point of my reply to Dr. Adequate. He infers that religious dogma has to be untrue. How does he know this? If he cannot scientifically explain the origin of life, on what does he base this disregard of religious dogma?Rahvin writes;
; Do you intrepert Dr. Adequate as meaning that religious dogma may be correct?
That is my point, he completely rules it out, and I don't think he is able to do that w/o an exlanation of how life began.Rahvin writes; That is really not a valid point. Would you agree that Creation is one of the most accepted possibilities for the universe and life?
I believe educators are able to select the most possible and probable reasons for life and teach them in a responsible manner.
The last I heard Science was not claiming it is incapble of error.

A brilliantly executed "god of the gaps" argument. Well done.In science class rooms, they are supposed to teach science. If there is in fact no plausible explanation for the beginning of life (a question I will not look to creationists to answer), then we should teach that there is no plausible explanation, but here are the lines of research that show some promise. What we absolutely shouldn't do is say, we don't know, so goddidit.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

​

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

​

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

​

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

Theodoric writes; I was commenting that Dr. Adequate was stating that it was a religious dogma and therefore could not be true. I was not denying it is a religious dogma.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is dogma and so it cannot be taught.It really is that simple.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

He actually didn't say that. He noted that it was once plausible, but now is only religious dogma. In the context of this thread, it is obvious that what he was saying is that there is no scientific evidence supporting it. This is fact.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

​

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

​

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

​

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

Granny Magda writes; I personally agree with your statements above. I am of the opinon that evolution is a very well documented scientific theory. I don't agree with the scientific intrepretation of it's cause, because I belive in creation., and do believe creation in some manner has occurred.I am of the opinion that the 21st century theory of Natural Genetic Engineering of James A. Shapiro, even though he is a naturalist, leads to the possibility of intelligence in the cells that could not have come from random mutations in re to fitness.But I don't agree with Dr. Adequate that religious dogma is false and not to be considered.In the class room evolution and creation can be discussed by intelligent instructors.

And the evidence for creation is????Evolution is based on evidence, so what is the evidence for creation?Or should teachers just say "There is no credible evidence yet known for creation" and move on to the next subject?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

taq writes; I am not saying creation is not a religious dogma. I disagree with Dr. Adequate who, I belive, is saying it is religious dogma and therefore is not true.Taq writes; Once again, unless science can prove the origin of life, how can you rule out either one?Taq writes; Nor is there scientific evidence to suggest it is incorrect. The instructors should be well qualified and prepared to present both sides of the issue.
Until there is absolute proof of the origin of life I do not belive it is proper to leave Creation out of the classroom.

Coyote writes; Perhaps the instructor could tell them that science has no scientifically agreeed theory of the orgin of life, and the Bible does give a presentation of creation as the origin of life.To this day we cannot say with certainity whether either or both are correct. That will be for you to read about and decide. After all they are students.

But saying "the Bible does give a presentation of creation as the origin of life" has absolutely no informational content. If someone said "the Book of Endor does give a presentation of creation as the origin of life" and it would be equally valid.Neither gives us any information about how life began.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Below is an example of another tribal myth. Do you want to have that taught also? Or do you want us to just accept your tribal myths?

The Creation of Men and Women

​

When the world was finished, there were as yet no people, but the Bald Eagle was chief of the animals. He saw that the world was incomplete and decided to make some human beings. So he took some clay and modeled the figure of a man and laid him on the ground. At first he was very small but he grew rapidly until he reached normal size. But as yet he had no life; he was still asleep. Then the Bald Eagle stood and admired his work. "It is impossible," he said, "that he should be left alone; he must have a mate." So he pulled out a feather and laid it beside the sleeping man. Then he left them and went off a short distance, for he knew that a woman was being formed from the feather. But the man was still asleep and did not know what was happening. When the Bald Eagle decided that the woman was about completed, he returned, awoke the man by flapping his wings over him and flew away.

​

The man opened his eyes and stared at the woman. "What does this mean?" he asked. "I thought I was alone!" Then the Bald Eagle returned and said with a smile, "I see you have a mate! Have you had intercourse with her?" "No," replied the man, for he and the woman knew nothing about each other. Then the Bald Eagle called to Coyote who happened to be going by and said to him, "Do you see that woman? Try her first!" Coyote was quite willing and complied, but immediately afterwards lay down and died. The Bald Eagle went away and left Coyote dead, but presently returned and revived him. "How did it work?" said the Bald Eagle. "Pretty well, but it nearly kills a man!" replied Coyote. "Will you try it again?" said the Bald Eagle. Coyote agreed, and tried again, and this time survived. Then the Bald Eagle turned to the man and said, "She is all right now; you and she are to live together."

​

California Indian creation story

Do you have some empirical method for examining these various myths and evaluating their potential accuracy?And what criteria would you apply to them?Remember, any criteria you apply has to apply equally to all.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

So you admit your creationism is based upon Genesis in the Bible. How can you think it is anything but religious dogma? What would you call it?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Not because of the evidence? As far as I am concerned. I see no reason to believe such a thing, but really, it's up to you want you want to believe. Just don't confuse your beliefs with science. Yeah, I noticed. You have misunderstood what Dr A is saying. He said that creationist beliefs (such as in a six thousand year old Earth) have been falsified and thus proved to be no more than religious dogma. That puts them beyond the scope of science class. Hopefully by intelligent ones, yes. But the truth of the matter is that there are a lot of teachers out there who are only too keen to teach kids wrong-headed nonsense like the six thousand year old Earth in their classes. So what do we do about those bozos?I do believe that both the Genesis creation myth and the modern Theory of Evolution have their place in the classroom. I just prefer that the religion go in a religious education classroom and that the science go in a science classroom. Any other set up is just going to give fundamentalist Christian teachers an opportunity to preach Biblical literalist/inerrantist rubbish in their classes and that's unacceptable.Mutate and Survive

---

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

Clearly, if creationism is taught in the public schools, it would be "creation science" or ID or whatever new deception the creationists dream up to hide their agenda from the courts. Presented straight out of the creationist play-book for using our schools to proselytize. The purpose goal of science education is for the students to understand the ideas and concepts of science; science education explicitly does not want to compel belief. Real-life experience with creationism being taught in the classroom has been that they "taught both sides and left it up to the students to decide which to believe", whereas actually they misrepresented evolution and made false claims and then urged the students to decide then and there between this thinly-veiled "unnamed" Creator and godless evolution.The science classroom is for learning science, not for proselytizing.

I would expect that a proper science class discussing these subjects would inevitably be at least partly dismissive of acceptance of dogma. I wouldn't want my kids to be taught religion in a science class. I'm perfectly okay with taking charge of their religious training outside of school.Science classes are not 'philosophy of thinking' classes. In a science class we should expect students to actually practice the empirical scientific method and to follow the evidence whereever it leads. Edited by NoNukes, : Corerect misattribution